16-bit... It really is enough!

[rkbates]

As a consumer, all of my audio upgrades have sounded better (to me). Double blind tested, absolute chalk and cheese. For me to change from 16/44 I would have to see clear evidence in the testing and hear clear differences in the sound - nothing so far is pushing me in that direction, too much distraction from just enjoying the music and finding new artists.

 

[earlevel]

I don't see a lot of point in argument 16 bits or 24 bits. Sure, I agree 16 bits, as a delivery format is adequate. But the cost for 24-bit is only a 50% increase in storage, and nothing at all on computation. Sample rate is a far bigger deal—96k is more than 118% boost to 44.1k, AND the same boost to computation. And pretty much anyone who likes 96k likes 192k a whole lot more—335% more than 44.1k, in both storage and computation.

The added computation isn't much of a deal for playback, but it is for content creation. A huge waste, in my opinion—essentially reducing available processing power to 46% for 96k, 23% for 192k.

 

[watchnerd]

But based on resolutely metric German science though...

Anyone of my generation and older in the UK still likes to talk in Fahrenheit as it annoys the youngsters who don't understand it, whereas we long ago learned to double it and add 30 so we knew what the 'proper' temperature was once the weather reports stopped giving out both.

And anyone who tries to give their body weight in kilograms instead of stones and pounds is ruthlessly suppressed.

I compete in the 102 kg weightlifting class but saying it as '16 stone class' sounds much cooler.

 

[watchnerd]

And pretty much anyone who likes 96k likes 192k a whole lot more—335% more than 44.1k, in both storage and computation.

I've tried to ABX test myself on 96 vs 192 vs 384 and failed to differentiate them every single time.

 

[trl]

Only under perfect conditions? Has anyone been able to tell a difference under ANY actual listening conditions in an ABX test?

Never said anything about ABX, I was only referring to the 90 dB CD's dynamic that is only valid to the 0dB FS peaks, so if a recording is done at -3dB or below then things will be different.

This argument completely ignores the limited dynamic range of the content and the limited senses of audience - 16/44 is good enough.

Definitely 16/44 is good enough for most of us, even when doing critical listening. In AB tests I only found a tiny background noise difference when comparing 16/24 bits resolution files (same tracks), but only at the beginning of the track, just before the instruments to start singing and with the volume near to max.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If only we had ended up with 60 khz sample rates, response flat to 25 khz and 20 bit. Only a 4% larger data rate than 48/24, but with much less reason to complain it might not be adequate.

 

[watchnerd]

As I said, it is indeed odd that the public desire to retain the pint only applies to draft beer, as served in bars. There is something rather nice and reassuring about the pint; it's a good thirst-quenching quantity without the beer going warm and dull by the time you get to the bottom. And a pint glass fits the average hand quite well.

The 1L steins commonly found in southern Germany are rather too large (IMHO) as the beer has typically lost its “liveliness” by the time you've reached the bottom. And before anyone comments, even “flat” British bitter has a certain liveliness when in good condition, vital to the enjoyment of the perfect pint!

Indeed.

It's common for airport bars to offer to sell a larger 22 oz beer as an 'upgrade' from the pint (uh oh...do I mean British or American pint?), but I always tell the bartender I can't drink my beer that fast and if I want more beer, I'll order another fresh one.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Never said anything about ABX, I was only referring to the 90 dB CD's dynamic that is only valid to the 0dB FS peaks, so if a recording is done at -3dB or below then things will be different.


Definitely 16/44 is good enough for most of us, even when doing critical listening. In AB tests I only found a tiny background noise difference when comparing 16/24 bits resolution files (same tracks), but only at the beginning of the track, just before the instruments to start singing and with the volume near to max.

Would that slight little aspect being less than absolute perfection ever in any way impact your enjoyment of music?

 

[watchnerd]

If only we had ended up with 60 khz sample rates, response flat to 25 khz and 20 bit. Only a 4% larger data rate than 48/24, but with much less reason to complain it might not be adequate.

They'd just complain about something else.

Example:

DSD, and it's "stair step" vs "bitstream" hoo ha

 

[trl]

Would that slight little aspect being less than absolute perfection ever in any way impact your enjoyment of music?

Nope, not at all.

 

[Pluto]

If only we had ended up with 60 khz sample rates, response flat to 25 khz and 20 bit. Only a 4% larger data rate than 48/24, but with much less reason to complain…

Very true, but it's easy to forget what a technological tour de force the CD was when it arrived. 600MB of data on a single surface that could survive a game of Frisbee. And don't forget, by way of comparison – at that time the owner of a 100MB drive on their personal computer was truly bleeding edge…

 

[mansr]

And don't forget, by way of comparison – at that time the owner of a 100MB drive on their personal computer was truly bleeding edge…

Make that 10 MB.

 

[David Harper]

Nope, not at all.

especially when the awful sq of so many CD recordings renders completely irrelevant any shortcoming in the CD medium. CD is capable of excellent sq. It's just that that's not what we usually get.

 

[Frank Dernie]

especially when the awful sq of so many CD recordings renders completely irrelevant any shortcoming in the CD medium. CD is capable of excellent sq. It's just that that's not what we usually get.

I have written this several times, the reality is that the SQ of recordings varies far more than the SQ of the hifi equipment we discuss here whether we like it or not.
CD is capable of replaying all the audible elements of music but lots of recordings are heavily manipulated before being released

 

[David Harper]

A lot like worrying about THD of 0.01 in an amp when our speakers have probably at least ten times greater distortion which would completely eclipse the amp distortion.

 

[Raindog123]

Make that 10 MB.

We bought a 10MB Rodime drive to our university lab's IBM PC (full name, just like that, pre "XT”) in place of one of those two side-by-side 360k flops. And it was a bliss!

 

[Count Arthur]

I have written this several times, the reality is that the SQ of recordings varies far more than the SQ of the hifi equipment we discuss here whether we like it or not.
CD is capable of replaying all the audible elements of music but lots of recordings are heavily manipulated before being released

I totally agree, most of my music collection was ripped from CDs to hard drive. Played back on my current set-up, which is without a doubt the best and most revealing I've had to date, some albums sound fantastic and have scaled with the improvements in my playback equipment. Whereas some albums were so poorly recorded in the first place that they sound little better than they did on cassette played on the crummy Walkman and headphones I had as a teenager - nostalgia and rose tinted glasses notwithstanding.

One of the albums I bought on Bandcamp recently came with two copies of each track, one 16bit 44.1khz, one 24bit 88.2khz, I thought it would be interesting to see if I could hear the difference. To my surprise, I could, but if Iook at the file information it looks as though something else is going on, the 24bit versions of the tracks have a higher dynamic range and when played they are slightly quieter than the 16bit version:

 

[danadam]

One of the albums I bought on Bandcamp recently came with two copies of each track, one 16bit 44.1khz, one 24bit 88.2khz, I thought it would be interesting to see if I could hear the difference. To my surprise, I could, but if Iook at the file information it looks as though something else is going on, the 24bit versions of the tracks have a higher dynamic range and when played they are slightly quieter than the 16bit version:

At least they clearly admit that it is a different master (though obviously none if it is an argument for requiring 24/88):

This bundle contains BOTH the regular CD/download master of and the iTunes master of the album. The regular master is good for mp3 playlists, i.e. when the tracks are part of a playlist and you want even volume. The iTunes master of the album has a more dynamics than the regular master, and therefore lower overall volume, so this is THE version for audiophiles and is recommended if you want to listen to the whole album and don't mind turning up the volume.

 

[Wes]

Reiss, J. D. 2016. A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation. JAES 64(6): 364-379.


http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

 

[dc655321]

Reiss, J. D. 2016. A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation. JAES 64(6): 364-379.


http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

Maybe I'm wrong, but is your point that this study is solid evidence for the necessity of > 16 bit audio?

From the paper's Conclusions:

Overall, there was a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate between standard quality audio (44.1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit) and high resolution audio (beyond standard quality).

and

Most studies focused on the sample rate, so the ability to discriminate high bit depth, e.g., 24 bit versus 16 bit, remains an open question.

and

In summary, these results imply that, though the effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect, the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain is affected by operating beyond conventional consumer oriented levels.

My take-away from this paper is that if you have to really squint to even differentiate, let alone prefer, then the high-res paradigm is absolutely meh.